Many readers wrote to ask a very important question regarding the issue of the wall the Israelis are building: “What happens after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issues its advisory opinion, forwards it to the secretary-general of the United Nations who in turn notifies the General Assembly?”

It is exceedingly difficult to predict this as it could go in two different directions. The ICJ may decide that the wall being built is legal for security reasons. By doing so, it will have deviated from its commitment to the norms of international law and binding treaties of which we can mention:

• General norms of International Law (in a state of war)

• Norms of International Law regulating situations of military occupation

• The Hague treaties relating to the laws and customs of land war signed in 1899 and 1907

• The Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in times of war, signed in August 1949

• The First Protocol annexed to the General Conventions ratified by the conference of diplomats in 1977.

In general, the norms of international law and the texts of international treaties protect nations under occupation from arbitrary decisions by the powers of occupation including land grabs and settlement building, forbidding mass or individual forced movement of residents, allowing citizens to remain on their land, freedom of movement within the territory and the right of citizens to return to their land — all of which Israel has done in addition to bulldozing homes, plowing up the land, destroying Palestine’s infrastructure, killing children and the elderly and assassinating political figures working for the independence of their country.

All of these agreements are binding on an occupying power; noncompliance exposes the occupying power to the penalties provided in Articles 146-149 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

If, on the other hand, the ICJ’s advisory opinion confirms the illegality of building such a wall and remains silent on the commitments and obligations under international law and the conventions regulating state of war and occupation — the question then will be: What happens after the opinion is issued?

The logical sequence is for the General Assembly to pass a resolution confirming the illegality of the wall, the necessity of ceasing construction and destroying what has already been built. The resolution would then be forwarded to the Security Council, which in turn would issue a similar resolution.

The bitter reality is that Israel enjoys despotic protection and consequently such a resolution will not pass in the Security Council. Israel is exempt — no one can condemn it, no matter how many crimes it commits. Even if such a resolution were passed, Israel would refuse to abide by it and none would question it. Is that not the reality that we have lived with since the creation of the State of Israel?

This will inflame the situation in the Middle East, where the daily Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people and the unstable situation in Iraq after its occupation have already created unease. The only positive result of the General Assembly’s resolution on Oct. 21, 2003, is that world public opinion, especially in Europe, will become more convinced that the Palestinian cause is just as well as being increasingly convinced of the dangers of Israel’s policies, which pose a continuing threat to the peace and security of the two countries and finally re-confirm that public opinion in the EU citizens were correct in labeling Israel the country that most threatened international peace and security in that now famous poll.